User makes post deriding WP admin for admitting not even reading his unblock request, WPO responds by insulting him

[Bbb23sucks]

Such naivety in assuming the goal of Crainsaw is to edit Wikipedia constructively.

Pro-tip. Anyone who chooses a super cool use name like Crainsaw, is clearly intent on Wikipedia terrorism. Specifically the wants to be caught public kind.

Pathetic losers who want to edit Wikipedia as a hobby, choose lame topic related names like Hemiauchenia.

Or Esotrix. LMFAO.

Your impotence is glaring. Your end, inevitable.

We have attacked the Moon! A pebble like you is nothing.

I dare you, find one disruptive edit, not even Piotrus or Marek pointed out disruptive edits.

Thanks, Crainsaw is a very cool username!

Pathetic losers who want to edit Wikipedia as a hobby

The important thing is I like what I do, and I did,

Don't worry. He's addicted to Wikipedia too. He just denies it.

[Ognistysztorm]

Such naivety in assuming the goal of Crainsaw is to edit Wikipedia constructively.

Pro-tip. Anyone who chooses a super cool use name like Crainsaw, is clearly intent on Wikipedia terrorism. Specifically the wants to be caught public kind.

Pathetic losers who want to edit Wikipedia as a hobby, choose lame topic related names like Hemiauchenia.

Or Esotrix. LMFAO.

Your impotence is glaring. Your end, inevitable.

We have attacked the Moon! A pebble like you is nothing.

I dare you, find one disruptive edit, not even Piotrus or Marek pointed out disruptive edits.

Thanks, Crainsaw is a very cool username!

Pathetic losers who want to edit Wikipedia as a hobby

The important thing is I like what I do, and I did,

Justapedia needs people like you to fix all the Holocaust distortions!

[Zoll]

Such naivety in assuming the goal of Crainsaw is to edit Wikipedia constructively.

Pro-tip. Anyone who chooses a super cool use name like Crainsaw, is clearly intent on Wikipedia terrorism. Specifically the wants to be caught public kind.

Pathetic losers who want to edit Wikipedia as a hobby, choose lame topic related names like Hemiauchenia.

Or Esotrix. LMFAO.

Your impotence is glaring. Your end, inevitable.

We have attacked the Moon! A pebble like you is nothing.

I dare you, find one disruptive edit, not even Piotrus or Marek pointed out disruptive edits.

Thanks, Crainsaw is a very cool username!

Pathetic losers who want to edit Wikipedia as a hobby

The important thing is I like what I do, and I did,

Justapedia needs people like you to fix all the Holocaust distortions!

I'll look into it, I can't guarantee it, but I'll check the policies, and members.

[ChaosMeRee]

I was banned by Wikipediocracy for hurting the feelings of Wikipedians. Or at least that is the only explanation that fits the available evidence.

Zoloft explaining that he had to ban me because people he respects were threatening to leave, says it all. It was a rare example of them giving any reason at all. I have been banned several times. There is something about a poster who is from the UK, tells the unvarnished truth about Wikipedia, and isn't the least bit deferential to Wikipedians, that triggers them.

How can you respect anyone who, when given a choice to either stand toe to toe with me and defend their views and actions, with the both of us subject to the same rules of decorum, or be a whiny little bitch who puts me on ignore, calls me a troll, a lunatic, and then when that doesn't work, runs to Mommy.

It is beyond pathetic. It is embarrassing, given you're supposed to be showing the world that Wikipedia is a bad thing. One of the worst things about Wikipedia of course being the well known fact editors are not equal like they claim, and the name of the game is finding yourself a Mommy as fast as you can.

Wikipediocracy has a lot of those Mommies as members, and presumably some of them are the people Zoloft respects.

He never named who it was who threatened him, and the cowards never admitted it.

Very wise. They know.

They all know.

I'm a horrible bastard. If you do me wrong, I'll make you fucking pay.

Jake did me wrong by trying to justify this bullshit ban with ever more bullshit, Zoloft being his pay master.

I am only as good at Wikipedia criticism as I am, because of how much fun it has been to show the very small world it is, that Zoloft is the sort of man who would rather ban one serious heavyweight critic than lose ten lightweight posters, nine of whom are in all likelihood active and committed Wikipedians.

People who, when confronted with the very compelling reasons why Wikipedia is Very Bad Thing, tend to have no fucking answer at all.

This is why I do what I do. This is why I never let people forget the things I have seen on that bullshit forum. Things that are very, VERY, far from what a reasonable person would say was Wikipedia investigation/analysis/critique. Things that most people would say were done to actually benefit Wikipedia, or certain Wikipedians whose morals and values are in a word, disgusting.

How morally corrupt do you have to be, to you call yourself a Wikipedia CRITIC, but you spend most of your day protecting, enabling and defending some of the worst Wikipedia Administrators and Unblockable editors who have ever lived?

They once used to claim they were high level people, that they don't engage in "inside baseball", as if somehow that was the reason they banned me. I took it as their attempt to cast their forum as being about criticism of the system, as if highlighting the shortcomings of people like Beeblebrox was somehow irrelevant to Wikipedia criticism.

So as an experiment, I spent quite a long time focusing only on systemic issues, there and here. As it turns out, rather unsurprisingly, if the analysis/critique of systemic issues you bring to that forum offends the hoardes of scummy Wikipedia editors and Administrators that Zoloft is protecting/enabling, well, you get banned.

Come up with a cogent analysis that paints the Foundation and Jimmy Wales as the good guys and the scummy volunteers as the bad guys?

That's a banning.

Come up with a cogent analysis that paints the Wikipedia editors who steer clear of Wikipediocracy and have detectable morals in their editing as the good guys, and the ones who jump into Wikipediocracy and get neck deep in the fifth as the bad guys?

That's a banning.

Come up with a cogent analysis that says the theory of Wikipedia is sound, it was the people who arrived later and now act as immovable bad seeds, that are the problem?

That's a banning.

Show that Wikipediocracy are not unbiased observers but active participants in the promotion of Wikipedia as an active participant in the left-right post truth information wars that have defined our times?

That MOST DEFINITELY a banning.

Pretty much doing anything that goes against their House POV (pro-asshole editors, anti-Jimmy, anti-WMF, conspiracy over simple logic), gets you banned. Newcomers and outsiders sense it pretty quickly, so they choose other venues without ever even registering. Some have even chosen Wikipedia!

That is perhaps the worst thing you could ever have done if you run a Wikipedia criticism forum whose USP was supposedly being an independent platform beyond the reach of the evil Foundation and their evil underlings - persuade some of your best writers that they are better off writing for the internal Wikipedia newsletter! And at the other end, persuade some of your Founding members they are better off starting their own forum!

Hence why I have said for a long while, the goal of Zoloft in how he runs that forum, is to flatter Wikipedia with imitation. To attract as posters only those who find such an environment familiar and comfortable. Wikipedians.

They have never denied it. They use the fact I cannot post on their forum, to pretend that these things are not even being said. That I do not even exist.

And if I don't exist, my criticism doesn't need to be answered.

Sound familiar?

Wikipedia's little brother. A product of Wikipedia's gene pool.

I have a very long memory when it comes to alleged Wikipedia critics doing things that Wikipedia editors would applaud.

Like I say, I'm a horrible fucking bastard. I think they once said I don't just disagree with someone, I grind their nose in the dirt. I think they thought that was a criticism. I took it as a compliment. Wikipedians are by definition some of the most disgusting people on this planet. Imaging the sheer arrogance it takes to believe you, a random nobody, can write an encyclopedia?

Seeing Ritchie talk about the gender gap, seeing Dennis Brown talk about editor retention, seeing Beeblebrox talk about Admin standards, seeing any of the hundreds of old white western men who personify Wikipedia say anything about why Wikipedia is such a failure, is a crime against decency.

I've done my time. I know these people. Ritchie is the only Wikipedia Administrator to be subjected an interaction ban because he made a woman editor feel like she was being stalked. Dennis Brown was a staunch supporter of Eric Corbett. Beeblebrox is the first Arbitrator in over a hundred to have been forcibly removed for cause.

I don't just ruin these people's day with inconvenient facts, I also grind their noses in the dirt because they deserve it.

They deserve everything that is coming to them, Wikipedians and their enablers.

I do what Vigilant used to do, and I do it better, with zero need for conspiracy theory bullshit, because I don't need Zoloft's permission to do what I do.

The facts and analysis I bring speak for themselves. They are things anyone with a brain and experience with Wikipedia can deduce. I claim no superiority in that regard, and take every accusation that I am as proof my detractors would rather have people be afraid of me than engage with me.

Contrary to the myths, the legend even, I am not a bad guy. I have simply done my time while others who would cast themselves as my betters, have been phoning it in for years, clearly. Or are straight up bullshit merchants. I give everyone a chance to prove they don't deserve what I typically bring.

I bring the facts, I just add colorful commentary. Because hate works. Harassment works. I have seen it work. Bearing in mind Wikipedia is by definition, not open to analyses whose conclusion invariably forces Wikipedians to admit the world would indeed be a better place if they just killed themselves and torched the servers.

I am good at it, and Wikipedians fear me for it. They fear the awakening.

They have infiltrated Wikipediocracy in some attempt to keep people in the dark. An illicit taleover that at some point was simply accepted by Zoloft as inevitable, as he opened the door willingly, arms wide, and duly persuaded or expelled those who would be inconvenient to his new life as Wikipedia's bitch.

It hasn't worked, it has merely persuaded curious people to ignore Wikipediocracy as an obviously compromised source.

That's good enough for me.

HTD.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 05#p338362

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 05#p338405

[badmachine]

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 05#p338362

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 05#p338405

:lol:

Are you kidding? They're almost as obsessed with Wikipediocracy as they are with Wikipedia.
Hi suckers :wave:

suckers... i like it! :^)

[ChaosMeRee]

They're almost as obsessed with Wikipediocracy as they are with Wikipedia.
Hi suckers

Hi rnu.

This forum was created because Wikipedia sucks and Wikipediocracy sucks at pointing it out.

Hope that helps you understand the world around you just a little bit more.

I'm sorry Uncle Zoloft and Aunty Jake haven't filled you in on the facts of wiki-life, but keeping little children in the dark and feeding on their souls, is kind of what they do.

Sorry 'bout that.

We would come and rescue you, but we kinda like to watch. And we believe children should be able to escape their cruel captors all by themselves, once their eyes have been opened to their living situation. We are fighting an uneven battle, so the weak and stupid ones are no good to us. We apply the same logic to Wikipediocracy's big brother, the mother ship, Wikipedia.

To be precise, What Wikipediocracy Wikipedia Sucks participants are actually obsessed with is being right. …

See rnu.

One of the weak ones. So terrified when he talks about the Big Bad Wolf, he not only gets our names mixed up, he cannot do his grammar properly.

BAD ANDY!

That's a paddling.

I recall he once claimed he was good at coding, in an effort to criticise a classic Wikipedia failing. I pointed out in a few words, that he was not. He's never been the same since. My habit of breaking their toys and making their child workers cry, is one of the reasons I was exiled by Uncle Zoloft and Aunty Jake. The tried to beat me for my disrespect, but I was already too grown, and made them quickly regret it.

Sometimes the fairy stories your Guardians tell you at bed time, have a grain of truth to them.

The Big Bad Wolf is real, and he has teeth.

This is the benefit of being right, when your chosen path in life (or the one life forced you into) is to be a critic.

Who wants to listen to an often wrong critc? Or one that doesn't understand the world around them?

*checks press cuttings and Wikipedia page*

Not the Wikipediocracy crew under their benevolent overlordship, clearly!



HTD.

If you want to learn to be a critic, escape their clutches and come live in the real world.

If not, stay under Jake's skirts. It's crowded, but it's warm and, safe, kinda.

Oh look, a Moon!

HOOOWWWWLLLLLLLLLLLL

[ChaosMeRee]

I will say that pretty much their whole site has become infected with the idea that this site is "pro-Wikipedia," essentially because we allow pro-Wikipedia types (including admins and Arbcom members) to post here.

......

Most importantly though, if Mr. Crowsnest ever made any attempt to "focus" on systemic criticisms with any of his (four, I think?) accounts here, I never saw it, and I read everything.

Oh dear.

You just never see it coming do you?

I had already given a specific example (Gateway Pundit) in this very thread of where I had raised systemic issues. I couldn't definitely tell you what I was posting either side of it of course, because banned users don't have that tool available to them, but I'd be surprised if that was a rare outlier amidst a sea of alleged shitposting.

It was a great example, because of course I had never forgotten that your response to me starting that thread about an important systemic issue (albeit admittedly heavily couched in a topical example), was to suggest it never should have even been made.....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 36#p215291

Not because it was a poor thread or I was talking nonsense or it was too inside baseball, but because it went against your personal politics and your desire for Wikipedia to be a full blown participant in left-wing post-truth disinformation campaigns.

And as I hope anyone with a brain can realise, my objection is not the fact you let Wikipedians post, it is what you let them get away with. That thread was a good example. The stonewalling, the misdirection, and when that failed to end the thread, the juvenile crap. You can see why so many of your posters love to call on Mommy to save the day. Because you did.

You let everyone know the Wikipediocracy House POV was that my thread was crap and Wikipedia doing what it did to Gateway Pundit was A-OK because after all, the only victims are crazy people anyways, right? And so once again, it was open season on me, I fought back, and you used that as your excuse to ban me. Just like the worst Wikipedia Administrators do.

Well, you all (y'all?) sure learned where that gets you, on January 6th. I told you that would happen, in part because Wikipedia was a microcosm of how Americans in general were approaching the problem of populism and your mass delusion that you excel as a country, and you scoffed. Because you're an arrogant ass. Don't worry, I've given up on waiting for my apology. You will note too, you fucking dickhead, the UK hasn't even come close to having a Trump moment. Not even close.

Yet thanks to your forum, and now I think about it, probably you specifically, the Daily Mail was conspicuously the first source to ever be banned by Wikipedia, having been labelled "fake news" by Lord Jimmy Wales of the Guardian Media Group. Before Breitbart. Before Russia Today. Before Fox (which is still considered reliable for non-politics!). You really are fucking lucky I hadn't connected these dots until today, and now I'm laughing that it was your pathetic attempt to try and paint me as a liar that led to it.

Why would I object to you letting even high ranking Wikipedians post? Sometimes it is the only way to show a person like you how wrong you are, both then and now...

Interestingly, I think you're both right. KI is answering the question posed by the thread headline "Gateway Pundit victim of Wikipedia smear?" and his answer is essentially "no, it's not smeared, because it's described as 'publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes' and that's precisely what it does."

But the question is more subtle than that. Regardless of the fact that they are a fake news site, are they also known as one? Are the sources saying they are known as one sufficient for Wikipedia to say they are, in Wikipedia's editorial voice? Maybe, maybe not. That's the whole point of the "verifiability not truth" mantra. Even without considering the "citogenesis" and the political leanings of the editors involved, it's a legitimate issue for CN to raise.

Wikipedia policies require (in theory, at least) high sourcing standards before one can call a fake news site a fake news site in Wikipedia's voice. Were those standards met? That's the real question being posed, not whether GP is a junk site, which I don't see anyone disputing.

Ouch.

Call yourself a Wikipedia critic? An actual former Arbitrator just did a better job of summing up a major and ongoing systemic issue with WP than you did. And if I recall, he was on the forum well before you made the changes you thought were necessary to attract low rent scum like Beeblebrox and complete and total retards like Hemiauchnia. The former of which would never even acknowledge a post like that, lest his tendency to corruption be seen as a key driver of it, while the latter would not even have the first clue what to say to a post like that because even after being a Wikipedian for seven years he still doesn't even understand it's relevance.

You'll never prosper Jake, because I am smarter than you and I'm nastier than Vigilant.

He is content to lie there like a neutered dog. I fight back.

Moreover, the implication that these non-existent "systemic critiques" of his actually might have offended anyone here, and that this is why we had to ban him, is simply absurd.

This would be the point where you get Zoloft to tell people Dan Murphy is someone he doesn't respect, or that they did not see Dan Murphy call me a "lying alt-reich stooge".

You can't win Jake. People can see from that very thread who you respect and who you do not.

You stand with the Volunteer Marek's and Dan Murphy's of this world. You would rather have ten Mings gently licking your balls with their soft wet tongues, than stand toe to toe with one intelligent man who knows his stuff and has done his time and doesn't need or want to feel loved when his only purpose for being in a forum is to debate.

That's your people. That's your legacy. The weak. The disgusting. The neutered Vigilant.

People know who I am and they know I will be fair and reasonable at first. I will only be angry and vindictive if there is a good reason to do so. For your crimes against criticism and critics, there is every reason.

And yet even here, under extrem provocation, have I not been reasonable?

Have I not answered your charges with indisputable facts?

Have I not shown my working and given everyone a chance to dispute that which they think could be disputed?

DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATOR JUST ANSWER!

Federation scum.

[ChaosMeRee]

Naah — he's having a fantastic time. Loving every minute of it! He hasn't had this much fun since we forgot to post that Framgate blog piece back in 2019

lol

He's reading the site and screeing off into the night every time someone posts.

I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly had a right good laugh seeing Jake not only refuse to admit he has lied about little old me, but seeming to genuinly think I could be distracted from the pursuit by him throwing Vigilant under the bus as a sacrificial lamb.....and then seeing vigilant apparently not even noticing. Or more likely these days, being a willing sacrifice. The sight of Vigilant not even replying to Jake but to his own post, suggests he might be going ever so slightly mad under this extreme level of scrutiny of who they are and what they do while claiming to be Wikipedia critics. Perhaps I should stop? I should, but I can't. They truly do suck.

[ChaosMeRee]

The vibe I get is someone who would be at a Mensa gathering and think he's a genius among idiots.

The vibe I get here is someone who doesn't realise they're being Jake's bitch.

I mean, surely you didn't write that garbage with the intention of helping Jake avoid having to answer for his lie?

You didn't see him throw Vigilant from the bus and then see me deftly swerve around his body, and think, a ha, now's my chance to shine.

Of course you didn't.

It's fine. This is what he does.

When threatened, he sends out pheromones to signal to the workers to attack. They know not why, they just do.

There's no shame in not seeing it. His tool of choice after all is the Wikipedia editor. And they are most assuredly none too bright.

Born to be enslaved, some might say. The sort of topic you might see discussed at a MENSA meeting.

I'll send you the minutes. You can make a nest or something. A necklace for your Queen perhaps.